GTA blamed in court case...again

**F9zDark** · September 26th, 2006, 23:41

Originally Posted by motormaniac

This is funny actually, i mean what kind of idiot would kill someone because they Did in a game, even if the Dad did abuse him.

This is the thinking that is what fuels the anti-game fire. No offense, but if you think his actions are because of the game, then I question your intelligence.

We all, as gamers, know that it is NOT the game that drives anyone to these heinous acts. His father abused him, both physically and mentally. He snapped because he was abused. He killed his stepfamily because he was abused. Got it?

Games had nothing at all to do with what he did. The media and police plant that BS in there to aid the anti-gaming movement. To be totally honest, I gurantee that it was the games that kept him sane. It wouldn't surprise me if he had killed his family at 11 or 10 years old if he hadn't had games to keep him sane.

It is a scientific proven fact, with humans and animals, physical and mental abuse lead to aggression and violent behavior.

**Video_freak** · September 26th, 2006, 23:49

Originally Posted by wraggster

The court found Posey, then 14 years old, guilty of murdering his stepfather, stepmother, and stepsister with a gun. Posey allegedly snapped after years of physical and mental abuse at the hands of his stepfather.

He wasn't doing it because of GTA, it was years of physical abuse!

Originally Posted by wraggster

Lawyers today said Posey would not have committed the murders if he hadn't played the "murder-simulation device" Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

It isn't a "murder-simulation device", it's a game, which people know isn't real and play because they can't do that in real life.

Originally Posted by wraggster

antigame crusader Jack Thompson

All I have to say to that man is: "Up yours!

"

**stotheamuel** · September 26th, 2006, 23:50

Originally Posted by F9zDark

This is the thinking that is what fuels the anti-game fire. No offense, but if you think his actions are because of the game, then I question your intelligence.

We all, as gamers, know that it is NOT the game that drives anyone to these heinous acts. His father abused him, both physically and mentally. He snapped because he was abused. He killed his stepfamily because he was abused. Got it?

Games had nothing at all to do with what he did. The media and police plant that BS in there to aid the anti-gaming movement. To be totally honest, I gurantee that it was the games that kept him sane. It wouldn't surprise me if he had killed his family at 11 or 10 years old if he hadn't had games to keep him sane.

It is a scientific proven fact, with humans and animals, physical and mental abuse lead to aggression and violent behavior.

Dude he agrees it wasnt because of the games lol re-read his post

**shrimpidy** · September 26th, 2006, 23:51

Y is GTA taking a lot of the hits for these kind of crimes? Most decsent gamers are nice people and would never consider killing anybody unless they utterly have to. I play it and it didn't influence me in any way except making new friends by relating to them through liberty city stories.

**F9zDark** · September 27th, 2006, 00:07

Originally Posted by stotheamuel

Dude he agrees it wasnt because of the games lol re-read his post

He's not agreeing. Re-read his post. His rhetorical question is in direct opposition to the point that the teen's father abused him.

This is funny actually, i mean what kind of idiot would kill someone because they Did in a game, even if the Dad did abuse him.

He is basically saying that the kid is an idiot for following the actions in a game and that his father abusing him had nothing to do with his actions because he followed what was in the game.

Not only that the sentence is ripe with grammar that does not agree with itself.

This is funny actually, i mean what kind of idiot would kill someone because they Did in a game, even if the Dad did abuse him.

**psychadelicious** · September 27th, 2006, 00:08

Originally Posted by Jpdeathblade

Seriously who is that stupid. "O I can run over old ladys in this sweet 3d game, I can do it in real life"

To be honest if yout that stupid you desurve to die. Just like drunk driving or driving witout a seatbelt, you crash and die you desurved it for being retarded =P

Yea I agree. I drink and drive myself but if i were to get injured I would have no one to blame but myself. Its not like it would be make sense to say I did it cause I saw a beer commercial.

**motormaniac** · September 27th, 2006, 01:17

Originally Posted by F9zDark

He's not agreeing. Re-read his post. His rhetorical question is in direct opposition to the point that the teen's father abused him.

This is funny actually, i mean what kind of idiot would kill someone because they Did in a game, even if the Dad did abuse him.

He is basically saying that the kid is an idiot for following the actions in a game and that his father abusing him had nothing to do with his actions because he followed what was in the game.

Not only that the sentence is ripe with grammar that does not agree with itself.

This is funny actually, i mean what kind of idiot would kill someone because they Did in a game, even if the Dad did abuse him.

How bout u re-read my post, im saying that no one is that stupid that they would do it in real life becasue they saw it in a game. I was burning the lawyers for thinking it was the game that made him do it. I think the game Had Nothing at all to do w/ the Murder. Thanks stotheamuel for sticking up for me, I appreciate it.

**motormaniac** · September 27th, 2006, 01:20

Please Dont Drink and drive psychadelicious u'll hurt other people too ya know.

**F9zDark** · September 27th, 2006, 01:34

Originally Posted by motormaniac

How bout u re-read my post, im saying that no one is that stupid that they would do it in real life becasue they saw it in a game. I was burning the lawyers for thinking it was the game that made him do it. I think the game Had Nothing at all to do w/ the Murder. Thanks stotheamuel for sticking up for me, I appreciate it.

Well I am afraid you had poor word choice... The same can be said for anyone committing a stupid act: "what kind of idiot would -----insert stupid act here----" that is always in regards to the person committing the act.

And the supporting clause offered no information which described your intent either(or really supported your true idea; it did, however, support the idea that you did not intend to convey). Given the words presented and how they were presented I took what you said in a context that you did not intend. But had the right words been used, the right message would have been conveyed.

But this is no place to debate semantics.